implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine in Texas

2019In Evans, while discussing the application of the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine,4 the court cited Duvall v. Ford Leasing Development Corp., 255 S.E.2d 470 (Va. 1979), with approval for the proposition that “when a larger tract is subdivided into sections 4 See supra note 3. 10 and lots in stages, for purposes of the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine, each separate recording created a separate and distinct subdivision with its own set of restrictions benefiting and burdening only the land in that particular subdivision.” Id.

1990Finally, by way of further example, in Duvall v. Ford Leasing Development Corp., 220 Va. 36 , 255 S.E.2d 470 (1979), the court held that when a larger tract is subdivided into sections and lots in stages, for purposes of the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine, each separate recording created a separate and distinct subdivision with its own set of restrictions benefiting and burdening only the land in that particular subdivision. 2 We have concluded that the weight of authority supports our conclusion that the restricted district need not be the whole subdivision nor include the whol

2014Corp., 220 Va. 36 , 255 S.E.2d 470, 473 (1979); Bernui v. Tantallon Control Comm., 62 Md.App. 9 , 488 A.2d 186, 191 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.1985)).

2014Corp., 220 Va. 36 , 255 S.E.2d 470, 473 (1979); Bernui v. Tantallon Control Comm., 62 Md.App. 9 , 488 A.2d 186, 191 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.1985)).

2014When a landowner imposes different conditions on different portions of his land or subdivides the land in stages, “for purposes of the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine, each separate recording create[s] a separate and distinct subdivision with its own set of restrictions benefiting and burdening only the land in that particular subdivision.” See id. (citing with approval Duvall v. Ford Leasing Dev.

2014When a landowner imposes different conditions on different portions of his land or subdivides the land in stages, “for purposes of the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine, each separate recording create[s] a separate and distinct subdivision with its own set of restrictions benefiting and burdening only the land in that particular subdivision.” See id. (citing with approval Duvall v. Ford Leasing Dev.

2016Evans v. Pollock, 796 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Tex. 1990) (citing Curlee v. Walker, 244 S.W. 497, 498 (Tex. 1922)).

2013See Ski Masters, 269 S.W.3d at 270 ; Curlee, 244 S.W. at 498 .

2021When a landowner imposes different conditions on different portions of his land or subdivides the land in stages, “for purposes of the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine, each separate recording create[s] a separate and distinct subdivision with its own set of restrictions benefitting and burdening only the land in that particular subdivision.” 4 Bitgood cites Hooper v. Lottman, 171 S.W. 270, 272 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1914, no writ), for the proposition that the lack of uniformity in the restrictions and deeds for the Larger Tract does not conclusively establish the lack of a general s

1990The leading Texas case on implied reciprocal negative easements is Hooper v. Lottman, 171 S.W. 270 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1914, no writ), from which we quoted at length with approval in Curlee .

2020Thus, we give no weight to the findings and conclusions because “‘[i]f summary judgment is proper, there are no facts to find’” and “the trial court’s precise legal conclusions are neither essential nor particularly germane to the disposition of an appeal from a summary judgment because the grounds for granting summary judgment are limited to those specified in the motion, and such judgments are reviewed de novo.” Id. (quoting Willms, 190 S.W.3d at 810 ). 5 of attorney’s fees is factually insufficient.3 In response, SJWTX raises for the first time a jurisdictional issue that Lantana Ridge lack

2020DISCUSSION Lantana Ridge raises four issues on appeal: (1) SJWTX’s easement is subject to the 2000 Declaration; (2) alternatively, the 2000 Declaration’s terms apply through the equitable doctrine of implied reciprocal negative easement; (3) the award of attorney’s fees is not supported by the UDJA or other legal authority; and (4) the evidence supporting SJWTX’s award 2 The trial court also made findings of fact and conclusions of law, but “[f]indings of fact and conclusions of law have no place in a summary judgment proceeding.” Gardner v. Abbott, 414 S.W.3d 369, 380 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013,

2020DISCUSSION Lantana Ridge raises four issues on appeal: (1) SJWTX’s easement is subject to the 2000 Declaration; (2) alternatively, the 2000 Declaration’s terms apply through the equitable doctrine of implied reciprocal negative easement; (3) the award of attorney’s fees is not supported by the UDJA or other legal authority; and (4) the evidence supporting SJWTX’s award 2 The trial court also made findings of fact and conclusions of law, but “[f]indings of fact and conclusions of law have no place in a summary judgment proceeding.” Gardner v. Abbott, 414 S.W.3d 369, 380 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013,

2013See Ski Masters, 269 S.W.3d at 270 ; Curlee, 244 S.W. at 498 .

2004The Trust argues that the doctrine of equitable servitude is separate and discrete from the doctrine of implied reciprocal negative easement as a means of creating restrictions that attach to a particular property, citing this Court's opinion in Selected Lands Corp. v. Speich, 702 S.W.2d 197, 198 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ refd n.r.e.).

1990Relying primarily on the language from Saccomanno v. Farb, 492 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.), requiring proof "evidencing a scheme or intention that the entire tract should be similarly treated," the court wrote, "It is the scope of the plan which defeats application of the doctrine." 793 S.W.2d at 21 .

1990Relying primarily on the language from Saccomanno v. Farb, 492 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.), requiring proof “evidencing a scheme or intention that the entire tract should be similarly treated,” the court wrote, “It is the scope of the plan which defeats application of the doctrine.” 793 S.W.2d at 21 .